So, your dog (which has a mind of it's own, and therefore in theory, you can never control 100%) kills someone, you could face life in prison. Your car (which you should be controlling 100%) kills someone, you'll get an inconvenient ban.

Yes, "we" are drivers who have momentary lapses of concentration, could happen to anyone your honour, didn't mean any harm. "They" are dangerous dog breeding council estate scroungers who deserve to be punished.

bails - Member
Yes, "we" are drivers who have momentary lapses of concentration, could happen to anyone your honour, didn't mean any harm. "They" are dangerous dog breeding council estate scroungers who deserve to be punished.

THAT, my friend, is a 5* quote and I will be using as much as possible.

its just another pointless headline grabber from the government (along with high profile harassing of brown folks at tube stations, bashing benefit scroungers etc)
all goes back to torry panic over ukip

There is a difference as there is no real need to won certain breeds of dogs but accidents do happen when driving.

BUT

I do think that driving offences are dealt with badly and there should be much more lifetime bans given out. I think the driving test should be harder too and possibly done in several tests that include motorways not one high stress one.

As a cyclist the amount of times I have been bitten and chased by dogs is numerous. There are so many irresponsible owners out there that let dogs off the lead that know they hate bikes etc. This quite often leads to problems with the owners as they 9/10 turn out to be morons if they are letting a dangerous dog off the lead. Any increase in the punishment for killer dog owners is 100% welcome. It might make some owners stop & think. I don't understand the significance of comparing this to another different type of crime?

It won't become law and - even if it does - people won't actually get life sentences. As such, it's attention grabbing tat designed for the ears of voters who dream of safe, friendly neighbourhoods, like we had in the 1950s.

On the other hand, there's dogs and there's dogs. I wouldn't mind seeing some hefty punishments doled out to owners of red-eyed hell hounds that, at some point, will scent blood and go bananas all over the place.

It has got me thinking that the anti-dog campaign has been interesting, though. They singled out particular breeds of dog to accuse of being inherently dangerous, regardless of any evidence.

Maybe, just maybe, we could do something similar? I wonder how much more action would be possible if we were to start accusing certain makes of vehicle (BMW? Iveco?) of being inherently dangerous to cycles? If it was a sustained campaign, I wonder how the PR departments of the targeted makes would react? Would it help bring things to the forefront of the minds of those that can change things?

A recent study carried out on 6,000 dogs and their owners found out 33 of the most aggressive dogs, and also those which have good temperaments. The study involved collecting data from two different groups. The first group consisted of 11 different breeds and the second was an online survey mainly involving owners, including 33 breeds. The conclusions from both groups were similar. It looked at the different types of aggression such as towards other dogs, towards strangers and towards owners. Some of the results were surprising, below are the top ten most aggressive breed:

Strange how the dogs that this is aimed at are the ones I have had least problems with, I have been chased and bitten by Jack Russells, Labradors, Border Collies, Yorkshire Terriers and Poodles, never by a Staffie, Alsation, Rottweiler etc so am hoping that any change to the law is across the patch and not just the 'alleged' dangerous dogs

My one experience with mutt-violence was a sudden attack from the pub dog in my old village. It was a red setter... and apparently red setters are always placid, loving Buddhist dogs - as dog-lovers keep telling me.

This blighter wasn't and I still have the noughts and crosses scars on my hand to testify that red setters are blood-lusting thugs. At least one was.

Mainly so, yes. I would rather be near a well trained pit bull, than a badly trained border collie.

You're possibly right. The guy-gangs I see hanging around in my home area don't seem to have good obedience training at the forefront of their minds, though.

By lack of evidence, I wasn't saying dogs don't attack, I was saying there's little evidence that one particular breed is more likely to attack than another, after taking other factors into consideration (like the chav-factor of the owner)

We have plenty of Tory-sterotyped chav gangs with mahoosive dogs straining on leashes in our area. Our neighbour has one, who (the owner said, to reassure me) "only goes for strangers or people he thinks are threatening me".

Needless to say, this scares my son sh!tless and mrscamo16, too.

Now, I'm a dog person by and large, but some of these beasts are tragedies waiting to happen.

bails - Member
Yes, "we" are drivers who have momentary lapses of concentration, could happen to anyone your honour, didn't mean any harm. "They" are dangerous dog breeding council estate scroungers who deserve to be punished.

THAT, my friend, is a 5* quote and I will be using as much as possible.

Thank you.

Best judge the situation first though eh? If someone askes you if 'you want fries with that?', pick a different response.

As a cyclist the amount of times I have been bitten and chased by dogs is numerous.

I have been chased and bitten by Jack Russells, Labradors, Border Collies, Yorkshire Terriers and Poodles

seriously? WTF do you do tie steaks to your ankles?
I was nipped by a terrier as young kid and once took my mums Cairn to the vets and the vet for some unknown reason shoved his finger up her arse and she turned round and bit me, which I couldn't really blame her for, other than that I have never been bitten and cannot think of a time I have been chased either on my bike or not.